Gun Control II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
854

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You know what happens to crazy people that do this? They take away your gun and lock you away for 90 days. And you are not prohibited from going and buying another one. Prohibiting that is not minority report, it’s common fucking sense.[/quote]

I understand. What you want is stiffer penalties for crime or mental illness. If someone is free, they get to exercise their rights.

You do understand that what you’re saying is something like, “The government does not do its job, so we should give it even more power,” right?
-How long do you think a business that operates like that would exist? “Bob can’t flip burgers or fill drink cups, so let’s make him a manager.”[/quote]

No, you don’t understand. What I want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of people that have been deemed a danger to society when they have them. To the best of our ability.

To use a twist on a gun nut phrase, Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.[/quote]

How many gun related homicides are committed by the mentally ill?

855

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You know what happens to crazy people that do this? They take away your gun and lock you away for 90 days. And you are not prohibited from going and buying another one. Prohibiting that is not minority report, it’s common fucking sense.[/quote]

I understand. What you want is stiffer penalties for crime or mental illness. If someone is free, they get to exercise their rights.

You do understand that what you’re saying is something like, “The government does not do its job, so we should give it even more power,” right?
-How long do you think a business that operates like that would exist? “Bob can’t flip burgers or fill drink cups, so let’s make him a manager.”[/quote]

No, you don’t understand. What I want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of people that have been deemed a danger to society when they have them. To the best of our ability.

To use a twist on a gun nut phrase, Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.[/quote]

How many gun related homicides are committed by the mentally ill?[/quote]

No idea. Tell you what though, how about you raise your kids next door to a guy with a high power weapon with a known propensity for violence when off his meds. Then tell me about how he every right to own a weapon as anyone else.

856

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You know what happens to crazy people that do this? They take away your gun and lock you away for 90 days. And you are not prohibited from going and buying another one. Prohibiting that is not minority report, it’s common fucking sense.[/quote]

I understand. What you want is stiffer penalties for crime or mental illness. If someone is free, they get to exercise their rights.

You do understand that what you’re saying is something like, “The government does not do its job, so we should give it even more power,” right?
-How long do you think a business that operates like that would exist? “Bob can’t flip burgers or fill drink cups, so let’s make him a manager.”[/quote]

No, you don’t understand. What I want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of people that have been deemed a danger to society when they have them. To the best of our ability.

To use a twist on a gun nut phrase, Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.[/quote]

How many gun related homicides are committed by the mentally ill?[/quote]

No idea. Tell you what though, how about you raise your kids next door to a guy with a high power weapon with a known propensity for violence when off his meds. Then tell me about how he every right to own a weapon as anyone else.
[/quote]

You said, “Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.” I am asking how many crazy people with guns kill people. I’m not saying living next to someone with issues who owns guns would be a picnic. I want to know if your fear is rational though?

If the guy has a propensity for violence shouldn’t he be locked up? Sounds to me like a flaw in our corrections system not a gun rights issue.

857

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You know what happens to crazy people that do this? They take away your gun and lock you away for 90 days. And you are not prohibited from going and buying another one. Prohibiting that is not minority report, it’s common fucking sense.[/quote]

I understand. What you want is stiffer penalties for crime or mental illness. If someone is free, they get to exercise their rights.

You do understand that what you’re saying is something like, “The government does not do its job, so we should give it even more power,” right?
-How long do you think a business that operates like that would exist? “Bob can’t flip burgers or fill drink cups, so let’s make him a manager.”[/quote]

No, you don’t understand. What I want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of people that have been deemed a danger to society when they have them. To the best of our ability.

To use a twist on a gun nut phrase, Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.[/quote]

How many gun related homicides are committed by the mentally ill?[/quote]

No idea. Tell you what though, how about you raise your kids next door to a guy with a high power weapon with a known propensity for violence when off his meds. Then tell me about how he every right to own a weapon as anyone else.
[/quote]

You said, “Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.” I am asking how many crazy people with guns kill people. I’m not saying living next to someone with issues who owns guns would be a picnic. I want to know if your fear is rational though?

If the guy has a propensity for violence shouldn’t he be locked up? Sounds to me like a flaw in our corrections system not a gun rights issue. [/quote]

I don’t know how many people that commit gun violence are clinically insane. So by locked up do you mean in prison or a mental hospital? For how long? Who is going to pay the 100K a year to keep him in a mental hospital (of which most have been closed)?

He has rights as has been pointed out. When he takes his meds he is fine, but he can’t be forced to take them. When he doesn’t he spirals into insanity. So at what point do you lock him up? After he pushes his elderly father down the stairs or when he stops taking his meds. Can’t lock him up for long for the former because he is nuts. Say you lock him up for two years for assault, should he be eligible to purchase a high power rifle upon release? Should anyone even check his history?

858

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You know what happens to crazy people that do this? They take away your gun and lock you away for 90 days. And you are not prohibited from going and buying another one. Prohibiting that is not minority report, it’s common fucking sense.[/quote]

I understand. What you want is stiffer penalties for crime or mental illness. If someone is free, they get to exercise their rights.

You do understand that what you’re saying is something like, “The government does not do its job, so we should give it even more power,” right?
-How long do you think a business that operates like that would exist? “Bob can’t flip burgers or fill drink cups, so let’s make him a manager.”[/quote]

No, you don’t understand. What I want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of people that have been deemed a danger to society when they have them. To the best of our ability.

To use a twist on a gun nut phrase, Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.[/quote]

How many gun related homicides are committed by the mentally ill?[/quote]

No idea. Tell you what though, how about you raise your kids next door to a guy with a high power weapon with a known propensity for violence when off his meds. Then tell me about how he every right to own a weapon as anyone else.
[/quote]

You said, “Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.” I am asking how many crazy people with guns kill people. I’m not saying living next to someone with issues who owns guns would be a picnic. I want to know if your fear is rational though?

If the guy has a propensity for violence shouldn’t he be locked up? Sounds to me like a flaw in our corrections system not a gun rights issue. [/quote]

I don’t know how many people that commit gun violence are clinically insane. So by locked up do you mean in prison or a mental hospital? For how long? Who is going to pay the 100K a year to keep him in a mental hospital (of which most have been closed)?

He has rights as has been pointed out. When he takes his meds he is fine, but he can’t be forced to take them. When he doesn’t he spirals into insanity. So at what point do you lock him up? After he pushes his elderly father down the stairs or when he stops taking his meds. Can’t lock him up for long for the former because he is nuts. Say you lock him up for two years for assault, should he be eligible to purchase a high power rifle upon release? Should anyone even check his history?
[/quote]

I’m not trying to argue with you, but I think the stats are important, which is why I keep asking for them. I’m just making #'s up, but if 1,000 murders are committed a year (with a gun) and 3 are by those deemed mentally insane, I don’t see how you can justify making a law disarming the mentally ill if they haven’t been institutionalized or haven’t committed a crime.

What exactly are we talking about here anyway? If you see a shrink should you not be allowed to buy a gun?

Well we don’t lock up murderers until they commit murder, so if he commits a crime he should be locked up. If he goes to jail for assault he’s no longer allowed to purchase a gun as it is. Tax payer’s unfortunately have to fund these types of things. I’m all for a better solution and I don’t have all the answers. Some of what you wrote is certainly a grey area.

859

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
No idea. Tell you what though, how about you raise your kids next door to a guy with a high power weapon with a known propensity for violence when off his meds. Then tell me about how he every right to own a weapon as anyone else.
[/quote]

Can you remember a mass shooting in which the gunman opened fire on his neighbors?

Columbine was a couple of unsupervised teens. They did their shooting at a school full of unarmed sitting ducks. Same thing with the guy on the east coast. The Aurora killer opened fire in a theater full of unarmed movie patrons. Does anyone see a recurring theme?

I wouldn’t be afraid of living next door to a crazy man with a gun. I’d be afraid to send my children to school that boasts of being gun-free.

860

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You know what happens to crazy people that do this? They take away your gun and lock you away for 90 days. And you are not prohibited from going and buying another one. Prohibiting that is not minority report, it’s common fucking sense.[/quote]

I understand. What you want is stiffer penalties for crime or mental illness. If someone is free, they get to exercise their rights.

You do understand that what you’re saying is something like, “The government does not do its job, so we should give it even more power,” right?
-How long do you think a business that operates like that would exist? “Bob can’t flip burgers or fill drink cups, so let’s make him a manager.”[/quote]

No, you don’t understand. What I want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of people that have been deemed a danger to society when they have them. To the best of our ability.

To use a twist on a gun nut phrase, Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.[/quote]

How many gun related homicides are committed by the mentally ill?[/quote]

No idea. Tell you what though, how about you raise your kids next door to a guy with a high power weapon with a known propensity for violence when off his meds. Then tell me about how he every right to own a weapon as anyone else.
[/quote]

You said, “Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.” I am asking how many crazy people with guns kill people. I’m not saying living next to someone with issues who owns guns would be a picnic. I want to know if your fear is rational though?

If the guy has a propensity for violence shouldn’t he be locked up? Sounds to me like a flaw in our corrections system not a gun rights issue. [/quote]

I don’t know how many people that commit gun violence are clinically insane. So by locked up do you mean in prison or a mental hospital? For how long? Who is going to pay the 100K a year to keep him in a mental hospital (of which most have been closed)?

He has rights as has been pointed out. When he takes his meds he is fine, but he can’t be forced to take them. When he doesn’t he spirals into insanity. So at what point do you lock him up? After he pushes his elderly father down the stairs or when he stops taking his meds. Can’t lock him up for long for the former because he is nuts. Say you lock him up for two years for assault, should he be eligible to purchase a high power rifle upon release? Should anyone even check his history?
[/quote]

I’m not trying to argue with you, but I think the stats are important, which is why I keep asking for them. I’m just making #'s up, but if 1,000 murders are committed a year (with a gun) and 3 are by those deemed mentally insane, I don’t see how you can justify making a law disarming the mentally ill if they haven’t been institutionalized or haven’t committed a crime.

What exactly are we talking about here anyway? If you see a shrink should you not be allowed to buy a gun?

Well we don’t lock up murderers until they commit murder, so if he commits a crime he should be locked up. If he goes to jail for assault he’s no longer allowed to purchase a gun as it is. Tax payer’s unfortunately have to fund these types of things. I’m all for a better solution and I don’t have all the answers. Some of what you wrote is certainly a grey area.
[/quote]

I think you are missing the context in which I wrote the original response. Maximus wrote “Someone who spent a few years in a mental facility is not going to bother pursuing legal methods of getting a gun. They will either steal one, buy one on the street, or acquire one through some other unscrupulous method.”

I just asked where he was getting this info.

861

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You know what happens to crazy people that do this? They take away your gun and lock you away for 90 days. And you are not prohibited from going and buying another one. Prohibiting that is not minority report, it’s common fucking sense.[/quote]

I understand. What you want is stiffer penalties for crime or mental illness. If someone is free, they get to exercise their rights.

You do understand that what you’re saying is something like, “The government does not do its job, so we should give it even more power,” right?
-How long do you think a business that operates like that would exist? “Bob can’t flip burgers or fill drink cups, so let’s make him a manager.”[/quote]

No, you don’t understand. What I want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of people that have been deemed a danger to society when they have them. To the best of our ability.

To use a twist on a gun nut phrase, Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.[/quote]

How many gun related homicides are committed by the mentally ill?[/quote]

No idea. Tell you what though, how about you raise your kids next door to a guy with a high power weapon with a known propensity for violence when off his meds. Then tell me about how he every right to own a weapon as anyone else.
[/quote]

You said, “Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.” I am asking how many crazy people with guns kill people. I’m not saying living next to someone with issues who owns guns would be a picnic. I want to know if your fear is rational though?

If the guy has a propensity for violence shouldn’t he be locked up? Sounds to me like a flaw in our corrections system not a gun rights issue. [/quote]

I don’t know how many people that commit gun violence are clinically insane. So by locked up do you mean in prison or a mental hospital? For how long? Who is going to pay the 100K a year to keep him in a mental hospital (of which most have been closed)?

He has rights as has been pointed out. When he takes his meds he is fine, but he can’t be forced to take them. When he doesn’t he spirals into insanity. So at what point do you lock him up? After he pushes his elderly father down the stairs or when he stops taking his meds. Can’t lock him up for long for the former because he is nuts. Say you lock him up for two years for assault, should he be eligible to purchase a high power rifle upon release? Should anyone even check his history?
[/quote]

I’m not trying to argue with you, but I think the stats are important, which is why I keep asking for them. I’m just making #'s up, but if 1,000 murders are committed a year (with a gun) and 3 are by those deemed mentally insane, I don’t see how you can justify making a law disarming the mentally ill if they haven’t been institutionalized or haven’t committed a crime.

What exactly are we talking about here anyway? If you see a shrink should you not be allowed to buy a gun?

Well we don’t lock up murderers until they commit murder, so if he commits a crime he should be locked up. If he goes to jail for assault he’s no longer allowed to purchase a gun as it is. Tax payer’s unfortunately have to fund these types of things. I’m all for a better solution and I don’t have all the answers. Some of what you wrote is certainly a grey area.
[/quote]

I think you are missing the context in which I wrote the original response. Maximus wrote “Someone who spent a few years in a mental facility is not going to bother pursuing legal methods of getting a gun. They will either steal one, buy one on the street, or acquire one through some other unscrupulous method.”

I just asked where he was getting this info.

[/quote]

No, I got that. I was just commenting on your crazy people with guns kill people comment.

862

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You know what happens to crazy people that do this? They take away your gun and lock you away for 90 days. And you are not prohibited from going and buying another one. Prohibiting that is not minority report, it’s common fucking sense.[/quote]

I understand. What you want is stiffer penalties for crime or mental illness. If someone is free, they get to exercise their rights.

You do understand that what you’re saying is something like, “The government does not do its job, so we should give it even more power,” right?
-How long do you think a business that operates like that would exist? “Bob can’t flip burgers or fill drink cups, so let’s make him a manager.”[/quote]

No, you don’t understand. What I want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of people that have been deemed a danger to society when they have them. To the best of our ability.

To use a twist on a gun nut phrase, Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.[/quote]

How many gun related homicides are committed by the mentally ill?[/quote]

No idea. Tell you what though, how about you raise your kids next door to a guy with a high power weapon with a known propensity for violence when off his meds. Then tell me about how he every right to own a weapon as anyone else.
[/quote]

You said, “Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people.” I am asking how many crazy people with guns kill people. I’m not saying living next to someone with issues who owns guns would be a picnic. I want to know if your fear is rational though?

If the guy has a propensity for violence shouldn’t he be locked up? Sounds to me like a flaw in our corrections system not a gun rights issue. [/quote]

I don’t know how many people that commit gun violence are clinically insane. So by locked up do you mean in prison or a mental hospital? For how long? Who is going to pay the 100K a year to keep him in a mental hospital (of which most have been closed)?

He has rights as has been pointed out. When he takes his meds he is fine, but he can’t be forced to take them. When he doesn’t he spirals into insanity. So at what point do you lock him up? After he pushes his elderly father down the stairs or when he stops taking his meds. Can’t lock him up for long for the former because he is nuts. Say you lock him up for two years for assault, should he be eligible to purchase a high power rifle upon release? Should anyone even check his history?
[/quote]

I’m not trying to argue with you, but I think the stats are important, which is why I keep asking for them. I’m just making #'s up, but if 1,000 murders are committed a year (with a gun) and 3 are by those deemed mentally insane, I don’t see how you can justify making a law disarming the mentally ill if they haven’t been institutionalized or haven’t committed a crime.

What exactly are we talking about here anyway? If you see a shrink should you not be allowed to buy a gun?

Well we don’t lock up murderers until they commit murder, so if he commits a crime he should be locked up. If he goes to jail for assault he’s no longer allowed to purchase a gun as it is. Tax payer’s unfortunately have to fund these types of things. I’m all for a better solution and I don’t have all the answers. Some of what you wrote is certainly a grey area.
[/quote]

I think you are missing the context in which I wrote the original response. Maximus wrote “Someone who spent a few years in a mental facility is not going to bother pursuing legal methods of getting a gun. They will either steal one, buy one on the street, or acquire one through some other unscrupulous method.”

I just asked where he was getting this info.

[/quote]

No, I got that. I was just commenting on your crazy people with guns kill people comment. [/quote]

All I am saying is that if someone has been institutionalized multiple time for being wildly schizophrenic, arming them might not be the best course of action. Just my experience.

863

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

All I am saying is that if someone has been institutionalized multiple time for being wildly schizophrenic, arming them might not be the best course of action. Just my experience.
[/quote]

Understood. My perspective is differnent is all. To me that’s a mental health issue not a gun rights issue. Our mental health system has failed him.

864

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

All I am saying is that if someone has been institutionalized multiple time for being wildly schizophrenic, arming them might not be the best course of action. Just my experience.
[/quote]

Understood. My perspective is differnent is all. To me that’s a mental health issue not a gun rights issue. Our mental health system has failed him. [/quote]

Not anymore he’s dead. To me it is both, a person shouldn’t be locked up in case they will go crazy either.

865

[quote]Villalobos wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If we start trying to justify gun ownership based on crime statistics, we will eventually lose guns. Self-defense(gun ownership) is a right, not a privilege. It does not have to be justified. I am guessing that the rate of criminal use of firearms is pretty low in prisons. When we try to justify a right based on safety, that is where we are headed.[/quote]

Nick,

Is it really a right? Should everyone be allowed to buy a gun? I guess that is where I struggle with this issue. The 2nd Amendment isn’t exactly clear on this either is it?

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

I think you can read this in a number of ways, first a well regulated militia is similar to a states National Guard, so maybe gun ownership should be confined to the “Nasty Girls”. However if you read it as there should be no laws restricting gun ownership (as a defined constitutional right) how do we justify waiting periods, background checks, the inability of felons to purchase firearms etc. A right is a right and it always remains a right, gun ownership appears to be more of a privilege in modern America doesn’t it?

I am not sure what I think about this, as a non-gun owner I have no skin in the game, it would be nice to see less people getting shot though, locally it is all black and brown teenagers getting shot by other black and brown teenagers, white people locally tend to kill via DWI.[/quote]

National Guard is not militia it’s an army. In the early days, the U.S. did not have a standing army. Armed citizenry was the ability to quickly organize and mobilize and armed unit. See the Whiskey rebellion.
We are still able to be called upon as militia should the government choose. And such a thing cannot be drawn up base on an unarmed populous.
One could say, ‘well we don’t need this anymore since we have an army’. Not true, say in the case of the L.A. riots, the only chance a citizen has who is caught in the mire is his own weapon. A militia can be organized for protection in quick order in such circumstances were the police are unable to deal with the situation and the state government is unwilling to unleash a standing army against it’s citizens. The ‘militia’ slips in between there. The right of citizens to protect themselves when things get out of control and it is something that serves the people, the state and the feds.

866

How about letting business owners themselves decide to whom they will sell weapons? What’s that you say? A business owner will sell to anyone with the money? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would seem to indicate otherwise.

867

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Not anymore he’s dead. To me it is both, a person shouldn’t be locked up in case they will go crazy either.
[/quote]

I absolutely agree with this. A person shouldn’t be locked up preemptively. However, if a person has demonstrated he is crazy, breaks a law, and is then lightly punished, it makes no sense to infringe on the rights of others in order to possibly reduce the chance of that happening again. It makes sense to impose a stiffer penalty on the offender.

If what you desire is a world totally free from danger, you’re probably out of luck. Of course, you can always bow to the government and trust it to protect you. Government are known for doing that well.

868

[quote]pat wrote:
National Guard is not militia it’s an army. In the early days, the U.S. did not have a standing army. Armed citizenry was the ability to quickly organize and mobilize and armed unit. See the Whiskey rebellion.
We are still able to be called upon as militia should the government choose. And such a thing cannot be drawn up base on an unarmed populous.
One could say, ‘well we don’t need this anymore since we have an army’. Not true, say in the case of the L.A. riots, the only chance a citizen has who is caught in the mire is his own weapon. A militia can be organized for protection in quick order in such circumstances were the police are unable to deal with the situation and the state government is unwilling to unleash a standing army against it’s citizens. The ‘militia’ slips in between there. The right of citizens to protect themselves when things get out of control and it is something that serves the people, the state and the feds.[/quote]

Pat, are you saying that dialing 1-800-BHOBAMA may not protect me in every possible scenario?

869

We have a law in California that gun control advocates have been asking for, but the government failed to enact it.

“SACRAMENTO ? California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.”

So yet again, a law is only as good as it’s enforcement. You have gun control advocates demanding laws like this one above, but even when they get them passed, they aren’t even enforced, and gun’s rights people get the blame.

870

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
So yet again, a law is only as good as it’s enforcement.[/quote]

Are you sure about that? I thought that if we only gave government more power, then it could protect us.

Maybe the government could let us all live in locked, individual rooms within huge houses to keep us safe? I think that would work, don’t you? The government could also let us all work to produce the goods it says we need, and we would no longer need to be paid in money.

Am I wrong? Would this system not be as great as I think?

873

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Villalobos wrote:

…I think you can read this in a number of ways, first a well regulated militia is similar to a states National Guard…

[/quote]

Oh for cryin’ out loud, this…this…this tired cliche is so boringly inaccurate it barely deserves a response.
[/quote]

Mr. Push,

How is it a tired cliche? It seems reasonable enough considering the definition of “militia”.

“Militia :a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service”

Nowhere in that does it say “Earl, Jim Bob and Kenny in camo shooting up the border”. The Militia Acts of 1792 also give a fair description of the purpose of a well organized militia., I am not anti-gun, but I think the issue isn’t as cut and dried as you would like.

Hector